Memory Beta talk:Cite your sources
Why not italicise episodes and short stories? Why should they be singled out? -- 8of5 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC) :Nothing I suppose, but that has been stipulated in the style guide created in the beginning, as far as I'm aware. I've definitely always used that policy, but I suppose that could change. --The Doctor 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC) It has? Opsie, well I move to have it changed, we, in principle at least, treat all sources with equal weight. -- 8of5 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC) :I'd vote for the change as well for the episodes, but keep the short stories with the "", as they are a part of a larger novel, but put the anthology name in italics. --The Doctor 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC) ::Umm, well actually I've been thinking about questioning that too, I don’t think the anthology should be the in the reference, you can find that out easily by clicking on the sort story name where the page should tell you what anthology it's in. Same for miniseries, having both titles makes some references extremely long. -- 8of5 23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) :Yeah that's true. But I do suggest that we keep the short story titles with the "" around them. --The Doctor 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Regarding the the titles of episodes and short stories, according to the rules of English grammar set down by the Modern Language Association, they are not to be put in italics. The reason being (basically) that they are "sections" of a larger work. Same with magazine/newspaper articles. Basic High School English here, guys. --TimPendragon 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) :Maybe that settles it then, to be gramatically correct we should leave the system as it is. However, I don't remember this at High School (must have been sick that day), then again my attention span has always been rather limited, plus the English teacher was a dragon. --The Doctor 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ::The only thing an episode is a section of is the series, which the novels are also part of... And short stories are only sections of a larger work in that they aren’t typically printed individually, each story is a work in it's own, not just a chapter in a book. -- 8of5 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC) :::Note that I said "basically." And maybe it's not standard High School English (I was homeschooled), but I definitely had it in college English 101. If you want to research it further, here's an online version of the MLA Style Manual --TimPendragon 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) :I was wondering about the titles of comics such as TNG comic: "Return to Raimon". I would have thought quotes since this is a smaller work and part of a series (the whole comic series would be put in italics - like Star Trek: TNG #1) but others have been italicizing the titles. I would think that they naturally are thought of as parts of a larger work - just like episodes are part of the series (this is why episodes are in quotes and the title of the show is in italics). It should be pointed out that 'part of a larger work' is not the only criteria that matter - for example, stand alone poems and short stories are also put in quotes. It is hard to find a source for this elsewhere as comics are typically cited as Spiderman #400 or whatever. Usually individual titles for issues aren't given or cited. And yes, User:TimPendragon is right, citation of sources is (or certainly should be) part of any standard course that deals with research papers whether it is English or History. I guess no one remembers citing "Article title", Journal Title Vol. etc.? Jdvelasc 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) ::The title of an individual comic story would be treated like an episode of a TV series, or a short story, since it is analogous to both. Heck, it's basically the same as a magazine article, in this sense. In other words, don't italicize it. Correct formatting for an individual comic reference would then be: :::Star Trek: Early Voyages comic: "Nor Iron Bars a Cage" ::Pretty simple, I think. --TimPendragon 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) :I agree -- I tend to naturally put quotes around everything that is an individual title, and italicize everything that is a "container" -- containing individual titles. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Update and expansion Following on from this discussion I have drafted a new version of this page, which gets rid of a lot of stuff we don’t use, gives the page a much needed update to make note of the use of reference templates now, and describes more fully exactly how and when to cite things. I also took the opportunity to write in a rule that reference lists in the appendices should always be in publication order which I imagine could be controversial, but this is a proposal so the entire document is up for debate. The draft is here, so let's get this page up to date and give us some nice clear guidelines to make it easy for new users and consistent for all users. --8of5 13:14, December 31, 2009 (UTC) :Any thoughts? As this has been at the top of the recent edits page for some time, and not had any objections to date I'll go ahead and replace the old policy with the new draft if no one raises any issue within the next week. --8of5 07:46, February 14, 2010 (UTC) ::I've only had a quick skim through, just trying to catch up with the wiki at the moment, but I can't raise any objections to this and will agree with a consensus on making the reference lists in publication order, if the general will points in this direction. --The Doctor 11:14, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Magazine citation problem I've found a problem with citing magazines and the like using the current format. Something like Star Trek: The Magazine uses a volume number, issue number format. The "mag" tag places a hash, #, for the issue number, which then looks bad if you try to note the volume number as well. For example, " " at File:Kazarite.jpg. I'm not sure how to handle it. -- BadCatMan (talk) 13:25, September 14, 2012 (UTC) :Updated the mag template a bit. It now takes a "vol" parameter at the end to allow for this, such as (in your case): :I'm going to tweak it a bit further and change it some more though, as I'm not wholly satisfied with this method. -- sulfur (talk) 14:20, September 14, 2012 (UTC) ::Well, it looks great now, thanks. -- BadCatMan (talk) 02:59, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Suggestion: Tagging references for translations, alternate spellings, alternate names and pronunciation guides. I've added tlhIngan Hol translations/transliteration of the title to many pages, such as T'vis, son of Barot (tlhIngan Hol: tI'vIS barot puqloD) and Order of the Bat'leth (tlhIngan Hol: betleH obe ), and I'm planning to keep doing so. Currently, the best option I have for citing this is to add an in-line citation in the paragraph where the translation is given, usually the introductory passage. However, this can be somewhat misleading, as it is often only the translation/transceiption that comes from the cited source. It's also a bit of a style issue, as the introductory paragraphs of many other paragraphs are uncited. I would therefore like to suggest that a fourth exception be added for when it is permitted to use tagging references: When the only information provided by the source is a translation, alternate spelling, alternate name or pronunciation guide. --LoghaD (talk) 09:29, October 9, 2016 (UTC) :So are you suggesting we use a format where a 'ref' tag will immediately follow the translation? Yeah, fine with me. -- Captain MKB 14:58, October 9, 2016 (UTC) ::Indeed! I see you've already started implementing this, so I'll go through the articles that cite The Klingon Dictionary and Klingon for the Galactic Traveler and update those; that should get most of them. Thanks for the quick response! --LoghaD (talk) 15:32, October 9, 2016 (UTC)